A Roman Catholic bishop from Springfield, Ill., who has called the Democratic Party platform “intrinsically evil,” challenged the likes of Sen. Roy Blunt and U.S. Rep. Todd Akin on Sunday to be more like Sir Thomas More, who was beheaded in 1535 after being convicted for treason.
Bishop Thomas Paprocki, preaching at the annual Red Mass at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis, told the lawmakers in a crowd of lawyers and judges that More, in his day, was roughly the equivalent to White House chief of staff, secretary of state and chief justice of the Supreme Court — all at once.
But More sacrificed his wealth and career on his religious conviction. He refused to accept King Henry VIII as head of the Church of England. More sided with Rome on that issue…
Paprocki is one of the architects of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ campaign against the mandate by the administration of President Barack Obama that religiously affiliated institutions, such as universities and hospitals, must soon include free birth control coverage in their employee health coverage…
In addition to Missouri Republicans Blunt and Akin, other dignitaries in attendance included state Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Glendale, and Ann Wagner, of Ballwin, a longtime GOP leader and former U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg…
Paprocki drew headlines in September when he wrote that the Democratic Party platform is “intrinsically evil” for its protection of abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage and that one’s soul could be in jeopardy depending on your vote.
“My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues,” he wrote in the Sept. 23 letter…”You need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”
In a period with religions and their flunkeys in politics embracing confrontation over our constitutional freedoms, I think it’s important to keep the issue in the public eye. We certainly can’t count on our politicians to take the responsibility.
As a Catholic and Pinko-Libral I feel conflicted.
Ok, the feeling passed.
I’m all better now.
Nice to see the church actually caring for its members rather than catering to the whims of politicians. Abortion is intrinsically evil, and to vote in favor of it does put your soul at risk. Now they should be denying communion to Catholic politicians that support abortion. Not appearing political shouldn’t outweigh their duty to help the politicians get right with God.
What about politicians that support nuclear weapons?
Remind me about Jesus’s teachings on genocide
Nope, that is just morally wrong and a war crime, not intrinsically evil.
Those nuclear weapons are bound to cause abortions in the pregnant women they kill.
But an abortion, THAT’s an abomination!
You can’t the the nose on the front of your face?
Is taking this stance really the best way to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country? I don’t think so. On the contrary it only makes the Church seem harsh and completely out of touch to those who disagree with it.
Start with common ground: Abortion is a bad outcome.
Then take the next step. How do we reduce the number of abortions knowing that making it illegal is an uphill battle and accepting the fact that significant number of people don’t see it as evil.
Here’s some key words: COMPROMISE and WIN-WIN
> accepting the fact that significant number of people don’t see it as evil.
All the more reason for the church to tell their members that it is evil.
Yeah, that doesn’t work for strongly held beliefs.
Minnesota has a marriage amendment on the ballot this Fall (Marriage is between one man and one Woman).
The local Catholic Archbishop has sunk a ton of money and energy into getting local Catholics to vote Yes. What has been the outcome? Just what you’d expect. Those Catholics who agree are fine with it, those who don’t are protesting in various ways or just leaving the Church.
A very popular lawn sign is:
“Another Catholic voting No”
You do realize that “COMPROMISE ” by definition is always a lose-lose outcome where neither party gets what they want. It seems you have compromised your point by trying to sound clever.
A win-win is the ultimate outcome, but not always possible.
The problem with politics in this country is exactly what you say. Compromise is seen as lose-lose so nothing gets done which is a guaranteed loss for everyone. Compromise means you don’t get EVERYTHING you want, but you may get the things that are most important to you.
Not all compromises are wise. That I will agree with, but some are necessary. You don’t usually win a war without losing some battles. You might even end a war by agreeing to SOME conditions you’d rather not agree to but it’s preferable to continued death and destruction, even if you’re winning.
Let me put it this way. Some people see a fertilized egg as a human being. Others see it as a microscopic collection of cells that will eventually (hopefully) becomes human but it’s not a human anymore than a seed is a tree.
You might be able to convince a few people on either side of the argument to change their position but the majority are going to stick with their current viewpoint.
Those are the cards we’re playing with. Calling the other side “evil” does nothing but impede any sort of movement on the issue.
>How do we reduce the number of abortions?
Gay marriage ?
He’s probably referring to the left’s attack on Christianity. It’s obvious to people that think for themselves and don’t drink the cool-aid of the cult of Progressivism.
Amen.
Define “attack”.
Do you mean “trying to outlaw Christianity”?
Do you mean “impeding the rights of those who are attempting to practice Christianity”?
Please be specific, and give examples if you can.
Taken with a 40lb chunk of salt, given that it came from an organization that failed to protect the helpless from pedophile priests.
The problem is they, The Church, do not represent good.
They represent a selfish power that seeks more power. Power begets money, and money begets power. Without both, they are nothing.
Good is represented by setting the example, talking through conflict, and seeking amends.
Not by casting polarizing aspersions.
They must feel weak, and attacked, and are attacking back. This is not a winning strategy for growing your religion.
>But More sacrificed his wealth and career on his religious conviction
More was Henry VIII’s head of religous genocide. He ordered the burning of the protestant martyrs (among many other people) before the political wind shifted and he ended up on the wrong side.
Actually, from a Roman Catholic Church position, he’s right. That is to say, he’s wrong. 🙂
But at least he’s not a hypocrite. Unless, of course his hobby is buggering choir boys. Someone should look into that.
Now, what’s this about a “Red Mass” ? Is that some kind of Communist prayer meeting? Someone should look into that, too.
What’s hypocritcal about a priest raping children? Nothing in the bible about it.
Not laying with a man = naughty (apparently) but it doesn’t say anything about children.
Back in 1968 Pope John Paul VI basically decided that the use of artificial birth control was a sin. This went against the views of an an advisory group that he put together which included many bishops as well as lay people.
Were they all evil too?
Paproki says: “My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote.” Just that you’ll go to hell if you vote for the wrong one.
Nice.
Here’s a clue: Calling good-willed people evil just because they disagree with you is not a way to move your agenda forward on such a controversial subject.
How about trying this approach? Can we agree that an abortion is a bad outcome? I think most people agree that it is. Then how can we drastically reduce the numbers of abortions performed?
By calling abortion and the people that condone it at least under some circumstances “Evil”? Don’t think that’s going to work. Just a hunch.
How about maybe acknowledging that preaching abstinence will only work for a subset of the population? How about saying that while we don’t agree with artificial birth control, it is vastly preferable to abortion?
Honestly I think some people would rather fight than win.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what this is about: “…Calling good-willed people evil just because they disagree with you is not a way to move your agenda forward…”.
It is not calling good-willed people evil just because they disagree with you. It is even less “moving an agenda”. Church doctrine is fixed and by definition non-pliable. Church doctrine does not qualify “good-willed” and “bad-willed” people. It strictly defines good and evil. It asks all who want to subscribe to that church to accept doctrine as-is, NOT to interpret it. Church is not a democracy or academic forum. Finally, the church doctrine does not apply to anyone who does not want to be a member. Don’t believe in the doctrine – don’t be a member, there is no enforcement to be in either by Church or Government. That said, Democratic Party platform states (for a long time) certain goals and beliefs that are strictly defined as evil by the Catholic Church doctrine. Not a disagreement. Nothing to agree or disagree with. State of fact. No moving agenda this or that way. Again, just pure and simple and trivial state of facts: immutable Church doctrine sez’ X is evil by definition. Democratic party supports X. -> Democratic party is factually evil by the doctrine standards of Catholic Church.
Church wants to reduce number of abortions too, but there is no sacrificing immutable standards of belief just because current political climate accepts abortion as PC.
Applying abstinence would work for 100% of the people. By definition. Obviously. “Not realistic”? – Not relevant. Just not EASY. No human right there for easy anything.
All this and I am not even a Catholic,… it is completely understandable even by non-Catholics as soon as you accept that their teachings are their fixed teachings and that Church (as I said) is not democracy or academia.
When you’re telling people how to vote, you’re promoting an agenda.
I didn’t say “Applying Abstinence” wouldn’t work. I said “Preaching Abstinence” wouldn’t work for everybody. BIG DIFFERENCE.
The Church can only preach. It cannot apply. Preaching abstinence doesn’t work today. It hasn’t worked in the past, and it likely won’t work in the future. If that’s the case, then you need to try something else.
And I disagree with your interpretation of how the Catholic church applies the term “evil” to people. Generally it doesn’t. It says certain acts or even thoughts are sins. Some sins are venial, some are mortal. A person, all people for that matter, commit sins but that does not make them evil.
Given that, I seriously doubt that in the Church’s mind that the Democratic Party is any more evil than the Republican party because both take positions that the Church does not support.
So, in this context, labeling one political party as evil is just promoting a political agenda.
I do agree with you that the Church sees things as black and white which is one of it’s big failings in my view. Once it decides something is a sin (officially), it is nearly impossible for it to retract that view, even if future generations of Church leaders agree that they got it wrong.
Artificial birth control is one of these sticklers for them, although there’s disagreement over whether the position on birth control is “infallible” (infallible in the Catholic sense) or not. Jesus had nothing to say about Artificial birth control. The Church had to come up with a position, based on old documents, – much like the supreme court I suppose. Oh, and prayer I’m assuming. But the bishops and the lay people who recommended that the Church take a different stand on birth control prayed too.
However, aside from all that. There are almost a million abortions performed in this country a year. The Church could do a lot to reduce that number by engaging in conversation and shutting down the rhetoric. Or they can continue on the path that Paprocki is on and be completely ineffective.
“Church doctrine does not apply to anyone who does not want to be a member”.
Church doctrine applies to all as far as they’re concerned, members or not. Leaving the Church or not subscribing to it does not free you from any (significant) obligations it sees you as having as a child of God.
And the Church isn’t entirely immutable. Change is slow but it can occur. Viewpoints can soften though they may not disappear entirely.
As an example, Galileo. The Church still hasn’t completely forgiven him for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun.
>Church doctrine is fixed and by definition non-pliable.
Burned anyone for reading the Bible in English recently? Bought any good indulgences?
Jews still dammed for killing Jesus? Do women still have souls?
>: immutable Church doctrine sez’ X is evil by definition. Democratic party supports X. -> Democratic party is factually evil by the doctrine standards of Catholic Church.
Church refuses to condemn Nazis -> Church therefore supports activities of Nazis Q.E.D
A slightly different take on the subject.
As a former Catholic it is interesting to see how the values taught to most of us come into conflict in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Lots of Catholics and the Church itself are big on “social justice” which is more naturally aligned with Democratic positions. The Catholic church also takes a very black and white stance on issues related to reproduction which align more closely with Republican positions.
Stewardship of the earth is seen as a duty so the Church was very much behind the “Green” movement.
It goes on an on. I think it’s safe to say though that the Church and Libertarians wouldn’t agree on much.
If history is any indication, the church doesn’t agree on much with the church either.
Let’s gather up all of the “banned” books of the bible and put them back in.
I bet they’d sell hundreds, maybe dozens of hundreds.
Sounds to me like he is running for one of those Red Cardinal Hats.
His letter was worded to protect their tax free situation
“My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote…..”
To me the irony is that the Catholic church could play a very effective part in reducing the number of abortions performed but they get tripped up by their own dogma as it relates to birth control.
No irony at all when birth control is on the continuum of abortion. “Sex is gods gift for procreation==not fun.” Even the rhythm method is an abomination in gods eyes.
I’d look some of this stuff up…. but who cares?
You “apply” the teaching by removing abominations of the faith from the congregation. Course you do that and your congregation/income drops dramatically and competing religions take over.
simple business. Nothing to see here.
“No irony at all when birth control is on the continuum of abortion. “Sex is gods gift for procreation==not fun.” Even the rhythm method is an abomination in gods eyes.”
Actually the official Catholic view of sex is more nuanced than that.
The rhythm method is not an abomination as far as the Catholic church is concerned, other than perhaps the fact that it’s ineffective.
While it sees procreation is a key component to sex, the Church recognizes that sex in a marriage has value beyond procreation. Further, there are times when it is sensible (perhaps even necessary) and not sinful to limit the number of children a family has.
In fact, there is a method of “natural” birth control that the Church says is A-OK. It’s referred to as “Natural Family Planning”. It relies on careful charting of the woman’s basil temperature changes over the month. Patterns can reliably predict the onset of ovulation. Along with self-examination of cervical mucus, it can be used to prevent pregnancy by abstaining from sex during certain parts of a woman’s cycle. It’s effectiveness, when used correctly, exceeds that of condoms and approaches birth control pills.
One problem with it is that it depends on keeping careful records, taking the woman’s temp every day and accurate observations. There are devices which essentially do the charting for you, – small computers with thermometers that help but are not cheap.
Another problem is that it requires abstaining from sex exactly during that time of the month when many women are most interested in having sex.
And finally, the Church puts itself in the awkward position of trying to explain why this OK, but some other forms of contraception like barrier methods aren’t.
Unlike Christians, I don’t remember the Democratic Party as having any Crusades.
So who’s evil again?
He’s a freaking holy rolling moron with no credibility what so ever.
Why care what the scum bag has to say about anything.
Obviously he’s a wee bit of a nutter. He blames the devil for sexual assault lawsuits and is a huge fan of exorcism. Reverend Lovejoy is a much better choice if you’re visiting Springfield.
Copied from an earlier thread from someone much more clever than me: “If you could reason with religion, it wouldn’t exist.”
Yea, verily.
There is GREAT HYPOCRISY AND EVEN SIN in religions preaching one thing and acting oppositely. Of Course, all religions should be preaching who to vote for and who not to vote for. Hardly anything closer to the actual living by the faith than doing that. 99% don’t do that though because they want to protect their institution. Legally, the Church can PREACH whatever it wishes. The only thing at risk is their non profit tax status—ie===money. Rather an intrinsic sin taking place every Sunday in every church. And of course, any faith worthy of the name should be excommunicating ALL POLITICIANS. Serving Mammon not god.
But what else is Religion but in your face hypocrisy?
Ha, ha. Stoopid Hoomans. “…♫ … You really need me…. Thats why I love Mankind….”
That’s why we threw them out in Québec.
My favorite titty bar in Gatineau, Québec is a bankrupt catholic church that lost all of its parishioners, got bought for a song and converted into a nude dancing establishment.
Thomas Paprocki can suck my dick while I piss.
Go whine to your invisible big guy in the sky.
Allah, Yaway, God, Shiva, Khali, its all bullshit for gullible, weak-minded morons.
AMEN!
Wholey shit.
lol just lol
Who’s trolling whom?
a) Bishop Too-too cries about atheist liberals because the don’t take him seriously.
b) Liberals and atheists respond to this serious accusation with wall of text, their tears streaming, hearts bleeding. SO MAD!
c) The rest of us point and laugh.
One solution would be to treat churches like any other non-profit and have them pay taxes. Then we’d see the true “market value” of these ideas were they not subsidized by all of us though tax breaks.
I think a lot of these radical churches would dry up and blow away were we not propping them up year after year.
www(dot)taxthechurches(dot)org
If churches paid taxes, the national debt would be paid off within a decade, perhaps sooner.
You’re a Class “A” moron orchidcup, seriously, you are seriously stupid. You should under no circumstances handle you’re own financial affairs, get an adult to help you.
Sadly, thanks to a completely dumbed-down public education system MOST of the US population actually believed the unemployment data presented following the Obama debate defeat.
…and also partly thanks to heavily “medicated” population.
I am doing fine financially, but thanks for your concern.
The correct spelling of “your” is y-o-u-r, it is not the concatenated word “you’re.”
Moron.
hahah…. The proper use would be “you are” or “you’re”.
How is making churches pay taxes a “solution?”
Wouldn’t erasing the separation of church and state be a green light to more meddling in politics?
How can there be any more meddling then now?
It may not be a solution, but I wouldn’t mind any way.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
—Isaiah 45:7
Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
— Amos 3:6
Behold, this evil is of the LORD.
— 2 Kings 6:33
I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the LORD.
— Jeremiah 45:5
God created evil so embrace it!
If the church wants to talk about “intrinsically evil”, how about the Catholic church cleans up the child molesting priests. Then they can talk of others being evil. As long as the church hides child molesting priests, they have NO moral authority at all.
And, the Pope was a Nazi youth!
To be fair, it was probably not a choice that was his to make.
Probably some authority figure told them him to join, obey orders and not ask any questions.
Fortunately he gave it up to become pope
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
— 1 Kings 22:23
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
— 2 Chronicles 18:22
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
— Jeremiah 4:10
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
— Jeremiah 20:7
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
— Ezekiel 14:9
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
— 2 Thessalonians 2:11
Not evil, but financially retarded.
Qur’an
5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
5:63 Why do not the rabbis and the priests forbid their evil-speaking and their devouring of illicit gain ? Verily evil is their handiwork.
Doesn’t the church know they are only supposed to call Republicans evil?
“It’s the BISHOP!!!!!”
Bwahahahaha
I should listen to some sexually repressed child molester in a dress who *cough* believes *cough* in some magical hoodoo that’s got a thousand different names, (and if you use one that is not the one scribbled in some mouldering pile of sheepskin somebody will kill you,) and that always lives in the sky? (But he needs your help, in the form of cash, cheques but the best is in real-estate*)
Pull the other one, its got fur on it.
No wonder atheism is the fastest growing group.
Faith, shmaith, give me some of that ol’ time science… I don’t just want to know why the sky is blue but what color it is on Mars, and on Jupiter and …
*) Gives you some pause doesn’t it. Any church knows, but tries to deny, the truth of the old Amerind saying that you don’t own the land, the land owns you.
How do we as a specie measure wealth? By the entirely inadequate acre.
That means that the anthropogenic rising of sea levels are going to rob the wealthy of trillions of dollars of valuable acreage. We have screwed ourselves with this fossil fuel obsession but its the land owners on the previously valuable shore line who are going to feel the effect.
When facts don’t fit your agenda, deny their validity – problem solved!
The background is the Left does not want there to be any higher power than the government.
Nice catch phrase. Rush?
This is a good time to celebrate the LOW UNEMPLOYMENT rate that God has enabled in order to help the Obama election.
Being all powerful, God has enabled this at the right time.
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
— Genesis 3:1-5
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
—Isaiah 45:7
It does seem God has his fingers in everything so my position holds true with your findings